Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 966 (AP)

Vijayender Jain v. M. Lalitha

2009-12-31

N.V.RAMANA

body2009
ORDER: 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.08.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1502 of 2009 in R.A.No.6 of 2009. 2. It is stated that the respondent/landlady filed R.C.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition schedule premises on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent from December, 1999 to March, 2000 and bonafide requirement. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the entire material available on record and on hearing both the parties, allowed the said R.C by order dated 02.06.2009 directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule mulgi and handover the same to the landlady within two months from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant approached the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and filed R.A.No.6 of 2009 along with the present I.A.No.1502 of 2009 seeking stay of execution of the eviction order dated 02.06.2009 stating that he never committed default in payment of the rents and that there is no bonafide requirement of the premises. The lower appellate Court, on hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated allowed the I.A granting stay of execution of the eviction order dated 02.06.2009 subject to payment of arrears of rent of Rs.56,732/- by the petitioner. Hence, this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that the learned Rent Controller in his order dated 02.06.2009, which is under appeal in R.A.No.6 of 2009, neither framed any issue with regard to enhancement of rent nor held that the petitioner/tenant is due to pay Rs.56,732/-. In the absence of the same, passing the impugned order by the lower appellate Court directing the petitioner to pay huge amount of Rs.56,732/- is illegal. He, however, submitted that if ultimately the appeal filed by him is dismissed and he is directed to pay the amounts, he would pay the same within a period of two weeks from the date of passing such an order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that the petitioner had already deposited the entire amount as directed by the lower appellate Court and that the respondent will not withdraw the said amount. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that the petitioner had already deposited the entire amount as directed by the lower appellate Court and that the respondent will not withdraw the said amount. Therefore, he requested to dispose of the revision with a direction to the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 5. A perusal of the order dated 02.06.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller in the above R.C., discloses that there is no finding in the R.C that the petitioner has to pay the enhanced rent. Apart from that, it is brought to the notice of this Court that since the respondent has refused to receive the rental arrears, the petitioner filed a separate case in R.C.No.5 of 2001 and the same was allowed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy permitting the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, accrued by him on or before 27.07.2008 and also future rent on or before 5th of every month. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner is paying the rents regularly. 6. Since the petitioner is said to be already deposited the rents in R.C.No.5 of 2001, and having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner as noted supra, that if ultimately the rent appeal filed by him is dismissed, he would deposit the rents as may be directed by the lower appellate Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing such order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition with the following directions: 7. The lower appellate Court is directed to return the amount of Rs.56,732/- deposited by the petitioner-tenant. The lower appellate Court is also directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.